America and its last free breath. A Rant by the Kid.

I agree. The fact that everything you all have labeled as a lost right has been set in place long before Bush ever came into office. The only thing
we can credit the patriot act for is the long lines at airports. In actuality, that would be the terrorist fault but it wouldn't be PC to say that.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Astrocreep and i have clearly shown that this is nothing new....That first...and second, there are circumstances when journalists have to give the
name of informants.... it has been the "law" for a long while....

Why? What type of information is it that one would be forced to reveal their source at gunpoint and/or threat of imprisonment? This definitely isn't
helpful. I'm sure this keeps many sources from coming forward with important info, for fear of being revealed.

As I've already mentioned, free speech zones were not previously enforced by our government. Any school who had this created their own in-house
policy. It had nothing to do with the gov. And, I know you don't believe this, but elections are no longer elections. They're just charades. Read
the patriot act and you'll find all kinds of unconstitutional things, unless you're as good at fooling yourself as the gov. is at fooling you.

That's ok. Keep those blinders on. They'll help you not to see anything you don't want to see.

It'll all come to light one day. Things will
have to get a lot worse before they get better. You're one of those people who just won't see it until it hits the worst, I guess. If you still
haven't figured it out, I'll see you through my gun sight, when the time comes. My only advise to you then will be, stay low.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Again, so that people will stop saying that reporters have been jailed only after 2000 for not revealing their sources in certain circumstances, here
is an excerpt that corroborates the contrary.

Everyone you mentioned went to jail. Jail is the Key word. Now they are being threatened with PRISON. Not JAIL. PRISON. Big difference.

The PATRIOT Act made dozens of significant changes to the law, including a handful that are truly radical.

The two examples I quoted are things not allowed untill the patriot act. Think about just these two examples and maybe you can come to the realization
of all the possible ways to exploit these loopholesfor the wrong reasons.

Originally posted by soficrow
Soros is a Nazi survivor - he put up about 23 million dollars to help stop Bush, because he knew from experience the Bush Reich is unfolding almost
exactly like Hitler's Third Reich.

Do you have any more info on this? *snip*

Going back to the beginning of this thread, page one, Soros survived allright.

George Soros is the son of the Esperanto writer Tivadar Soros. Soros was born in Hungary and lived there until 1946, when he escaped the Soviet
occupation by participating in an Esperanto youth congress in the West. (Soros was taught to speak the language from birth.) As a young man, Soros
traded currencies in the black market during the Nazi occupation of Hungary. Soros was fourteen when the Nazis invaded Hungary and he avoided the fate
of many Jews as the grandson of a Hungarian official overseeing the confiscation of Jewish properties, who was assisted by his son-in-law, Tivadar
Soros.

Originally posted by Damned
[
As I've already mentioned, free speech zones were not previously enforced by our government.
[edit on 15-11-2004 by Damned]

Yes, in fact they were. There was a world and a USA before Bush 43 you know? Anyone remember the WTO meetings in Portland during the Clinton admin.
Many of those protestors were arrested and jailed and whats worse, there was no zone that I'm aware of set up for lawful protest. Its very
convenient to back your politcal rhetoric by blaming everything you dislike on the current admin...and in as much as I would simply love it if that
were the case, we simply cannot allow these assertations to go uncorrected.

Look, we are free to protest anything we want but don't you agree that you have the right to protest and lawfully assemble without being harrassed?
Well, the other side does too and in as much as I don't agree with them politically, our liberties must be a two way street. We cannot assemble and
expect law enforcment to keep those trying to disrupt our assemblies out while insisting we be allowed to disrupt theirs under the guise of freedom of
speech.

Look, each and every one of us has the right to say whatever we wish, what we do not have, is the right to force anyone to listen. Big Difference and
I suspect the root of the confusion. If a political party, be it the GOP or the DNC plan a rally, rent or lease a private or public venue for the
purpose of doing their business, the law affords them the right to do so without agressive and abusive interuptions. A good deal of protestors to
anything deem it their right to assault anyone so long as its during the protest. Look, being at a protest doesn't give anyone the right to infringe
on anyone elses liberties nor is it a license for assault.

Look, if you want to plan a protest, plan a lawful one, call the media to cover it and if Bush and company barge in throwing bottles and making it
impossible for any you to be heard, I'll be the first one to jump right on your side. See, what I'm getting at is that we do not have the right to
do any damn thing we want any time we want. We are not free to do our every whim. Our liberties come with excessive responsibilities and they end
where the other persons begin. I'm not saying I agree with the patriot act nor that I don't think its a dangerous tool should it be used to target
law biding citizens. If given a vote, I would vote against it..honestly..simply because I don't like the govt. having any more power than they have
to have to do what it is they should do. Thats enforce our laws and defend the security ..and thats it.

If you want to be wary of anything, be wary of government control of individual earnings and implimentation of social programs designed to make us
jump through hoops to be able to earn a living.

Be wary of public education which places more emphasis on social issues than the basics. Jonny can't read but at least he'll never offend
anyone...partly because of his limited vocabulary.

Be wary when they begin talking about how the right to bear arms needs to be repealed. When they begin trumping up charges on state militia leaders
and when they begin passing so many gun laws, you don't know know from one day to the next what is legal and what isn't.

All througout the 90s many of us wondered about why terror groups weren't a high priority for our law enforcment but whether or not Jethro's shotgun
held more than 5 rounds while he was out hunting game was.

You know what weapons we should have been worried about? The chemical and bio agents being developed to wipe out entire populations. Developed by
our government as well as other governments.

I'll tell you all the biggest right we've lost in this country. The right to know where our hard earned money is being spent. When our government
cannot fullfill the required duties of a county the size of the US with 128 trillion dollars over a 10 year period, something is wrong somewhere...and
in fact, many things are wrong in many places.

Show me some examples then, astrocreep. I'd never heard of government enforced free speech zones, until recently. The burden is on you, since you're
the one claiming that it's been in use for so long. Regardless, it's still unconstitutional, and no matter how long it's been in practice, it's
still a violation of our rights. So, which presidents have herded their non-supporters down the street and made them stand in a box, previously? When
have these zones previously been enforced by armed police? As I've said, I've never heard of such a thing before. What's the difference between
free speech zones and actually putting people in a sound proof box? It's essentially the same thing, IMO. Call them what they really are: Repression
Zones.

I suppose, if we have a problem with this, we can always report to the nearest repression zone, where we'll be out of earshot of the president and
the media.

Instead of sidestepping the actual issue, trying to change the subject, saying it's been done before, why don't you just admit it's
a blatant violation of the constitution, and that it's definitely a step in the wrong direction that should be stopped immediately?

Originally posted by astrocreep
I'll tell you all the biggest right we've lost in this country. The right to know where our hard earned money is being spent. When our government
cannot fullfill the required duties of a county the size of the US with 128 trillion dollars over a 10 year period, something is wrong somewhere...and
in fact, many things are wrong in many places.

I have to agree with this. They spend our money as if there's an endless supply of free money. To them, it is free money.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
The United States is going to hell in a hand basket. Is there nothing, as citizens of this once great and proud country, can do to return to our past
glory? I hope for my childs sake, and the sake of my future grand children that something is done about this oppressive situation we are in today.

1. Thoroughly investigate election fraud 2004.

2. Prosecute and jail every last person who was involved with fixing the vote.

3. Do away with voting machines without a paper trail.

4. Inaugurate the rightful candidate, president-elect Kerry.

5. Bring the Bush Cabal up on charges: Foreknowledge 9-11, aiding and abetting the conspiracy/mass murder; lying the U.S. into an illegal war; war
crimes (Abu Ghraib); crimes against humanity.

6. Call the war on terror what it really is: BU#. (Not that there aren't terrorists. But let's get real, the whole Osama/9-11 thing, as brought to
you by your corporate sponsors and Clinton/Bush II administrations is pure fiction.)

7. Rebuild the alliances the Bush administration has worked so joyfully to destroy.

OK,
Let me explain something. I LOVE my country and I want nothing but happyness for all of its citizens. I am a patriot. What I dont agree with is our
government and the way it abuses its power. Someone who loves the government is a nationalist. That, I am not.

The reason I am saying this is I recieved a U2U from a member named fentanyl. This member has NEVER even posted before. Lurker I guess. Anyway, in
this members U2U to me, there was no message, only a link. www.helpthemleave.com...
The link went to a web page called Help them moveon.org. You have to wonder what this members motives are for this.

Im hoping that fentanyl sees this and actually contributes to the board for once and replies in his/her defence.

I dont think they are so much as angry as they are unwilling to admit that they might be wrong. My god, if you try and say something that they
disagree with they star screaming "LEAVE THEN!" and other childish things.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anger/hate is the wellspring of fascism.

Well put

I suppose you could be right.[begin sarcasm for Bush supporters] SEE? RIGHT THERE! Thats the difference Bush supporters and the rest of
America. We, the rest of America, are willing to admit we might be wrong.[end sarcasm]

Originally posted by Damned
Show me some examples then, astrocreep. I'd never heard of government enforced free speech zones, until recently. .

[edit on 16-11-2004 by Damned]

If you'll look backa bit in my post, I think you'll find a link to the DNC using a fenced in compound to house protestors away from their
convention. I don't agree with this because I don't think it should be the responsibility of the party having its convention to make arrangments
for thos who aren't invited or welcome to have their voices heard.

As I have cited the example of the GOVERNMENT enforced free speech zone on the STATE UNIVERSITY campus gave people a place to speak their minds while
allowing students their right to study and obtain the education they paid for. It would have been pretty damn hard to hear the professor (or more
likely the grad student doing his/her teaching) over the local Old Regular Baptist Preacher giving an old fashioned fire and brimstone sermon now
wouldn't it? It was a state university funded in part by federal dollars so why did he not have the right to wonder the halls preaching? Did his
taxes not pay for some of it?

He didn't have the right because the purpose of the students being there was not to hear him but to gain their education. Once he interupted their
work with his preaching, he overstepped his rights and infringed on theirs.

I think we all need to realize that we are free to protes and say what we like but we aren't free to force anyone else to hear it. Thats my point.

When a mob burst in to any political rally unwanted, they have just impedded the attendees right ot peacfully assemble. They have impedded their
right to free speech because they come to silence the message of their opponents by rasing their voice higher therebyr forcing someone else to hear
it.

I don't agree with free speech zones at all. I hate that we have become a country which cannot understand where our rights end and someone elses
begin to the point that anytime someon assembles, they have to make accomodations for the opposition as well.

If you protest the GOP, then the responsibility is yours to make arrangments here them likewise with the DNC as well. When you burst into a
convention or speech being given by someone in either party, you aren't exercising your liberties, you have just crossed the line by forcing somone
to hear you who does not wish too.

Do you not understand this principle?

It works two ways as well. What of you were having a planned LAWFUL protest meeting and the Bush team burst in chanting down with you. They would be
in violation of your rights as well as everyone of your supporters because none of you would be willing to hear their rhetoric but would be forced to
if you were to continue your meeting.

I think it fine to protest and protest all you wish...but once your protest spills over to the location of your opposition and you interfear with
their agenda, you have taken your rights too far and impedded upon theirs.

A lot of people think having rights means you can run over anyone you wish. It doesn't.

Astrocreep. I have done some checking and it appears that the speaking places at the Universities are NOT laws. They are rules that the Universities
enact. Not federal laws, just plain old school rules.

Also, you used the DNC as an example. 2 things for that. 1, the RNC carried it out to the extreme this year. 2, This all happened AFTER the patriot
act. So yes, our rights ARE being raped from us while Bush is in office.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.